Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 is the government’s second legislative response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto, which came out in September 2005. I have some knowledge of this. The committee was established in 1983 and I have been a member continuously for about 11 years, so I am probably coming close to being the longest continuously serving member of that committee.

This committee really extracted its digit on this inquiry. Previously the committee had considered that a three-year electoral cycle did not necessitate quick reporting, but on this 2004 election report the committee thought there was a need to report quickly to give the government and the Australian Electoral Commission as much time as possible to respond and introduce legislation. It is a signal, really, of a broader problem that we face in the parliament. The committee reported in September 2005; 17 months later we are debating a bill which deals with non-contentious, unanimous recommendations. It does take an awfully long time to get these matters considered and passed by parliament.

However, here we are with this bill before us. This is a far better bill, I might say, than the regressive measures passed last year in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill. That was simply a very bad bill. I noticed that, although Labor opposed that bill—I will use them as an example—the number of donations declared by the Western Australian Labor Party diminished from 40, 50 or 60 in the six months to report under the old system to about five or six under the new system. What has happened is that this government has ended the disclosure and transparency that we enjoyed under the previous system. I emphasise that that bill was opposed by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens.

The provisions of this particular bill were referred for inquiry to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which has provided a unanimous report. The bill seeks to provide a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people and a remote electronic voting trial for Australian Defence Force members and Defence civilians serving outside Australia. It allows ADF members and Federal Police personnel outside Australia and eligible overseas voters to apply for registration as postal voters. It provides that the deadline for postal vote applications is to be 6 pm on the Thursday prior to polling day. It amends arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material by the Australian Electoral Commission and expands the range of AEC officers who can receive postal vote envelopes. The bill amends the requirements for the establishment of pre-poll voting centres so that they can be quickly established by the AEC in special circumstances. The bill amends provisions relating to enrolment from outside Australia to allow applicants the option of providing an Australian passport number rather than a current drivers licence number, as under the current proof of identity scheme. The bill repeals the section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to defamation of electoral candidates because defamation is covered in the general law.

That last item is a signal of much that is right with the committee system. A particular individual, Mr W Bowe, made a submission to the committee. He had been subject to litigation under section 350, the defamation section, as a website publisher. He maintained that the legislation was anachronistic in a modern communications environment and recommended it be removed from the Electoral Act. There were others who took an interest in this matter, such as Professor Quiggin, but the fact is that the committee listened to Mr Bowe with great attention. Section 12.44 of the report says:

Senator Andrew Murray also supported the removal of the section, or its amendment to include a clause making it clear that defamatory material had significantly affected the outcome of an election. This might facilitate prosecution of defamatory political comment on the internet through the Court of Disputed Returns, which handles allegations of corruption of the electoral process.

The committee had to consider this: you either remove the defamation section altogether and give it to the general law, and the general law covers criminal actions and penalties for defamation, or you strengthen it. We decided on the former and the government has agreed with us. That is, if you like, a sign of the committee process working well and unanimously for an outcome.

In contrast to what was ironically framed as the electoral integrity bill, the Australian Democrats welcome this bill. We welcome it because it has the effect of actually enfranchising voters and takes the machinery of the electoral process forward. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill passed last year had the reverse effect: it disenfranchised voters. Amongst other things, it targeted those who are least able to defend themselves. It took away the democratic right to vote from all those serving a term of imprisonment. My belief is that, if you want to give judges the power to apply jail as a penalty, you can. But to take away one of the rights of a citizen because they have been incarcerated is a double penalty and it is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The electoral integrity bill also had the effect of disenfranchising more voters through closing the electoral rolls on the day the election writs are issued, so a 66-year-old working system was done away with. No longer will 18-year-olds and those wishing to register or change their registration details have seven days to do so. Arguably again, the hundreds of thousands possibly affected were thought by the coalition to most likely vote for Labor or minor parties. I do not think it was an integrity issue at all; I think it was a partisan political issue.

However, this new bill establishes a framework for two electronic voting trials at the coming federal election. One will allow for visually impaired people to cast a secret ballot and the second, as I have said, will allow Australian Defence Force personnel and Defence civilians serving overseas to cast an electronic vote. Those trials are a forward step for our democracy. However, the trial will only be available for the visually impaired at 30 locations across the whole of Australia. This does not accord with the standing committee’s recommendation that such centres should be available in each electorate. I accept that this is a trial and, if successful—and I cannot see why it should not be—I hope that the trial will see this process established in all electorates. I trust that it will be resourced sufficiently to achieve that aim, because true equality requires that such a service be made available to other electors in need of such facilities.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission stated in its submission to the inquiry on the bill that it supported the bill but would like to see electronic voting made available to other similarly disabled electors, and quite rightly so. In this respect, HREOC referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. It was pointed out that, apart from the right to vote in genuine periodic elections by secret ballot, the covenant also obliges political parties to adopt measures where required to give effect to these rights without discrimination of any kind. This of course obliges governments as well. Again, I trust that future governments—indeed, I encourage future governments to—will facilitate further the universal right of all our citizens to cast a secret ballot.

The second electronic trial for Australian Defence Force personnel overseas is an excellent move. Those women and men serving overseas, often away from their families, deserve every possible facility to enable them to cast a vote.

The other technical provisions of the bill relate to deadlines of postal voting applications and the manner in which postal voting materials and votes are managed. It is envisaged that these measures will provide greater flexibility and options for the return of postal votes in time for inclusion in the count.

Also provided, in accordance with proof of identity requirements introduced in June of last year, are amendments that will allow those enrolling to vote from outside Australia to provide an Australian passport number rather than a current drivers licence number.

As the bill reflects unanimous recommendations, we obviously support it. It will have acceptance in the community. On that point, I would like now to urge that the Commonwealth government examine further reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act arising from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There are many areas that they can look at, but there is an area I would like to look at arising from my supplementary remarks to the JSCEM report. It is something I have pushed for many years and I think it will have considerable consequences for our democracy. What prompts me to raise the issue in this way is what has been happening in my home state of Western Australia, now known as ‘Burke’s backyard’. Former Labor Premier Brian Burke has been up to his antics again. One would have hoped that both Mr Burke and Western Australia would have learnt something from the consequences of the WA Inc. saga.

It seems that his lucrative lobbying business has been booming and he and others are now under investigation by the WA Corruption and Crime Commission concerning underhand tactics to get up some controversial development deals for his clients. There are allegations of the handing over of undisclosed funds from developers to bribe government officials. For example, the general manager of property developer Australands’s WA division admitted in evidence that, in concert with Mr Burke, an independent interest group was used as a vehicle for advancing partisan commercial interests. Allegedly, such funds were used to finance the re-election campaign of a pro-development mayor. Mr Burke is also alleged to have been instrumental in securing other development deals that also appear to have campaign funds linked to them for some individuals.

Evidence has been tendered that the principles of cabinet government are under threat through ministers being named as sources of confidential cabinet information for Mr Burke and his clients. Former WA Minister for Small Business Norm Marlborough, apparently under evidence, was exposed as giving regular cabinet updates to his longstanding friend Mr Burke. He was quite rightly sacked by Mr Carpenter, the current Premier, for doing so. That does not seem to have mattered, as Mr Burke still claims to have his plants in cabinet. Another two ministers have been nominated but not named in this process.

The reason I raise this in the context of the electoral bill is that these are the sorts of issues that I raised in my supplementary remarks to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 2004 federal election. They concern issues of political governance. If the government is going to respond to that report, I think it should have a look at what I had to say, because the problem with the media coverage of the Burke issue right now in WA is that they are awfully excited about the scandal and the revelations, and are enjoying no end the scalps that are found in the process. But when it is all over, we have to remember that firing a few ministers will not solve the problem. We also have to remember that the vast majority of Labor members and Labor parliamentarians do not support this activity either, and they need to be given a leg-up in solving these problems and ensuring they do not recur. That can only happen legislatively.

I strongly urge that donations from developers, which are much loved by all levels of government, be banned. They threaten the very integrity of our political system. They are the subject of crime and corruption commissions in every state. I recall former Prime Minister Paul Keating just last year calling for their banning. Sadly, it is the case that our democracy will continue to encourage corruption and undue influence for as long as donations like that are permitted. Of course, it is made worse by the passing last year of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill, whereby secret donations can now be made in multiple tranches provided they are under $10,000. So, roll on donors, your money will buy you access and influence, and there are so many ways you can donate handsomely and anonymously.

If ever the day arises where strings attached to donations are prohibited, as they are in some democracies, it will be a time for us to celebrate an advance in our Australian democracy. The details of my arguments are in my supplementary remarks to the joint standing committee’s report but, essentially, I urge Premier Carpenter to put accountability, integrity and transparency front and centre for the government in Western Australia. I urge him to introduce political governance, which would mean that political parties are at least subject to the public accountability regime that applies to listed corporations and unions. At present they have less transparency than a local sports club.

The following are the minimum standards the media and the public should be demanding from Mr Carpenter. There should be a ban on donations from developers to political parties in local and state government, and of course in federal government. There should be stiff penalties for any donations with strings attached. Professional fundraising should be subject to the same disclosure rules applying to donations. Political parties should disclose who lies behind donations from trusts, foundations or clubs, or return the money. Donations or loans from foreign overseas individuals or overseas entities should be banned. Labor should be given back to the members by applying one vote, one value to the Labor Party to stop union bosses elected by non-Labor members deciding who Labor’s candidates will be. And political parties should produce an annual public report that fully details their financial statements, sources of their income and what it is spent on. A very wide range of individuals and organisations have called for a clampdown or banning of donations from developers. These sorts of donations threaten the integrity of our political system at every level.

My message to the media is that, whilst you and your readers may find the scandal enlightening and the heads that roll may be satisfying, in the end we have to fix the problem. Many, many Labor parliamentarians and many, many Labor members want to see this sort of slur on their party put away and not repeated. The only way to do that is to improve the standards of political governance, and the only way to do that is for Mr Carpenter to act and for the coalition government to act to improve the nature of the accountability mechanisms applying through the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which it has failed to do.

While I welcome this machinery bill, whilst I deplore its predecessor which passed in June 2006, I think the most important issue that we still face is getting political governance in this country up to the same speed as corporate governance and applying the same standards of accountability to our own political parties that we demand from corporations and unions. We would be much better for it.